Flopping - Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018) Discussion

[–] Torniojaws (102) 6 years ago

Competing against Deadpool 2. In May. With almost zero advertisement. Following the worst movie in the canon.

They wanted this movie to fail.

reply

[–] maul (1533) 6 years ago

Not sure I understand this sentiment, there's zero chance they wanted this movie to fail.

reply

[–] mitzibishi (1617) 6 years ago

They assumed the "new" fans would hold it up because they didnt want the old fans anymore.

Just like all those "new" fans for the 2016 Ghostbusters who are going to help launch the Ghostbusters universe.

You can hear them talking about Ghostbusters 2016 now *crickets*

reply

[–] Vechtersbaas (550) 6 years ago

Yeah those new fans really carry 40 year old franchises, do they?

reply

[–] mitzibishi (1617) 2 months ago

Apparently not. That's why they have failed so badly alienating, insulting, agitating, and finger pointing at the old fans.

They didn't replace the old fans with new fans at all. They didn't even get new fans because the content they've been putting out is pure tripe.

Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Ghostbusters, and now Marvel. It's backfired on the studios so badly. Gigantic IPs that were guaranteed money makers that are now dead weight.

reply

[–] lordbishop34 (1442) 6 years ago

Is it fair to call it a flop though? Yeah it may disappoint and anything less than R1's total box office is certainly something that should concern Disney. But a flop would indicate it didn't profit which we don't know yet.

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 6 years ago

Yes, we do. They have to pay back a $4000 million investment. To make it clear: you have to get a $300 million benefit to pay ONLY interest. Every year. And then some if you wanna pay back the debt. And then some if you wanna get some money from it.

reply

[–] lordbishop34 (1442) 6 years ago

What would be success for this film for you? its not a main line SW film so TFA result simply isn't a reasonable expectation..so for you to avoid this particular film from being a flop..what does it have to do?

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

Last number I saw was 700 mil to break even...most likely will accomplish that...WILL be the lowest gross for a star wars flick ever...might lose money...like you said...too soon to be precise.

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 6 years ago

Yeap, but to break even... considered the money paid to Lucas?.

I'm sure that this has been considered inside the company (a company I used to work used to charge every department with shared expenses, and you had to include it as a cost in the balance). But those numbers, we won't know about them. That break even includes reshoots, but I don't think it includes Lucas money.

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

4 billion recouped in Dec 2017...

https://www.bleedingcool.com/2017/12/29/disney-made-back-4-billion-lucasfilm/

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 6 years ago

C'mon, are you kidding me?

The calculated it summing up the full box office as benefit. Who they hire for journalists? 4 years old kids?

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

Got me on that one kuku!

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 6 years ago

Damn, somebody recognizing a mistake in internet.

Hat off to you, sir.

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

Evidently we've not interacted...nice to meet you kuku!

reply

[–] The LA Baker (799) 6 years ago

[Deliciousfeet
4 billion recouped in Dec 2017...

https://www.bleedingcool.com/2017/12/29/disney-made-back-4-billion-lucasfilm/]

Not sure which is more troubling:
The fact someone wrote and published that article, or the fact that you believe it and link it publicly.

If you subtract budget and advertising from all those numbers, Disney is deep in the red with little hope of ever reaching the black. Sure, they can turn it around, but not without completely revamping. If I were a Disney exec I would fire every person with any power of the SW franchise and find more appropriate people. Short of that they appear to be doomed to fail.

Personally, I think every SW since RotJ should have never been made and should be expunged from existence. FTR, I am not a SW fan at all, but the original trilogy was fun and entertaining. Everything else is a mediocre rehash of old ideas at best, and unwatchable dreck at worst.

"The future is stupid". -Me

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

Deliciousfeet

Got me on that one kuku...

You the kind that needs to hear it twice? Or just the kind that likes to be redundant?

reply

[–] The LA Baker (799) 2 months ago

First of all, the fact you were able to decipher anything meaningful out of that comment thread does not speak well of you or the state of discourse.

Second and most paramount, I responded in a clear and legible manner with information to explain and back up my contention. You not seeing the value of my post only speaks against you even more.

reply

[–] SammyJackson (24) 6 years ago

[deleted]

[–] The LA Baker (799) 6 years ago

" the company that made 6 billion in for 16/17 financial year alone, is in the “deep red”? "

I am not talking about the company Disney failing, but their investment in SW not paying off. One has almost nothing to do with the other. Disney is the second largest media company on earth(in terms of revenue). I am sure they will be around for a while.

Disney spent $4,000,000,000 on SW. They have to recoup that plus interest, minus the films' budgets and advertising costs. Gross income means damn near nothing if your net income is in the red.
They have plenty of other projects that are profiting. I am in no way suggesting Disney will fail, only that as of now their chances of making a profit from SW is slim to none unless they make some huge changes.

reply

[–] SammyJackson (24) 6 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mitzibishi (1617) 6 years ago

Potential earnings are down and are going to drop even further.

Whos buying those Rose Tico toys?

Make cool characters and they would sell like hot cakes.

reply

[–] SammyJackson (24) 6 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mitzibishi (1617) 6 years ago

Tico and Holdo toys are not flying off the shelves.

Potential earnings are way down and will drop even further.

If they created cool characters they would make much much more money.

Potential earnings from toys are down. Hypothetical, if they predicted $500 million on toy sales by 2019 they are going to fall way way short so they are not making the money they predicted.

"Hasbro revenue slumps on soft sales of 'Star Wars' toys"

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/07/hasbro-reports-fourth-quarter-earnings-2017.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lukethompson/2017/12/21/why-arent-star-wars-toys-selling-as-well-this-year/#35bafd2054e5

"retail orders to decrease by about 47 per cent from last year."

Thats almost half of lost orders on Star Wars toys.

With all these new films and new characters orders should be going UP.

Its down to bad films and bad characters.

Who wants a Jynn Erso toy? The blind guys friend in Rogue One or any of those bland nothing characters? Rose Tico? Crusty old angry Luke Skywalker who did nothing in TLJ apart from hologram himself?

Nobody wants to buy that as shown in the loss of sales orders.

reply

[–] SammyJackson (24) 6 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mitzibishi (1617) 6 years ago

It does not matter about me and you. We are insignificant.

It matters about the masses.

"Hasbro revenue slumps on soft sales of 'Star Wars' toys"

"retail orders to decrease by about 47 per cent from last year."

"doesn’t mean they didn’t already make a fuck tonne. Because they did. "

The only thing is, they only made HALF to what they projected they would make in toy sales.

TO a company that is lost money, they could have made a billion but because of the films they only made half of that.

reply

[–] SammyJackson (24) 6 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mitzibishi (1617) 6 years ago

Good idea, blame shops for not selling kids toys they dont want to buy.

Collectors and fans are a large market also, they usually buy multiples of the same item, one kept in the box, one for them and one for their kid.

Nobodies doing that with Rose Tico.

Nobody wants to do that when Disney is going out of its way to alienate the fans

reply

[–] The LA Baker (799) 2 months ago

The person you were discussing this with deleted all of their posts.
They did the same with the discussion I was having with them.
I hate when people do that. It makes it impossible to see what I was saying in context.

It also is a great way to look back on your past self and think, "I had a pretty good point there", or(more often IME), "My god, I thought some stupid shit in the past".
It is a great experience either way. They have robbed themselves of that in the future.
All my retarded posts are still up. I will never delete them.

reply

[–] mitzibishi (1617) 2 months ago

It just confirms how right you were and how wrong they were.

They looked at their old post and were either proven wrong or they had a moment of clarity and removed their own stupidity from the face of the internet.

reply

[–] xergan (866) 2 months ago

Wait until you get in a serious position in the media ;) Maybe SammyJackson is now at Disney.

reply

[–] hootiehome (409) 6 years ago

Sucks. While not as good as R1, it’s better than FA and TLJ.

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 6 years ago

Ron Howard is a pro (Willow is simply amazing). He's the best director in the modern Star Wars movies so far, hands down. So that makes sense.

But even a guy who knows the craft can't make miracles with the SJW execs controlling every step.

reply

[–] maul (1533) 6 years ago

That, and he basically had no time / had to repair the mess that KK made. Under different management, and with a different movie, Ron Howard could have been really great.

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 6 years ago

Well, at least he always delivers. No matter how awful is the script or the situation, he makes (minimum) a decent movie. That's the mark of good craftsmen.

But we go back to the same: a different management would be very similar to the current one. That's the big problem with SJW execs and HR: once they enter a company, they invade it. They hire SJW and they fire whoever speaks up against it (cough, James Dalmore, cough). As agent Smith would say, they are like a virus, though I'd say more like a cult. Or both.

And that's the reason because KK and Rian Johnson stay in power no matter they're costing an arm and leg (and I'm not talking about their salaries). Some way, it kinda fascinates me, how fanaticism can invade a company up to the point of making it go against its very raison d'être, which is making money. It's like those fungus who invade insects and make them suicidal to propagate the fungus.

When KK and RJ stay there (Johnson's still the one hired for the new trilogy) it's because the disease is strong in Lucasfilm. That company is dead meat.

reply

[–] maul (1533) 6 years ago

It has all stemmed from KK though, all of these hiring choices, the mentality against the fans, etc. Need to chop off the head of the snake. Get someone like Dave Filoni in charge.

reply

[–] Uriel (246) 6 years ago

How did it have the highest budget? Because of the huge amount of reshoots?

reply

[–] darkpast (8060) 6 years ago

yes, 250m+ budget.

reply

[–] AP (5259) 6 years ago

Supposedly 90% of the movie was already shot before they did reshoots. Granted, it's hard to tell how much of that percentage was reshot, but I imagine it wasn't a cheap move. I'm still surprised they let a movie go that far before getting a new director and ordering reshoots.

reply

[–] lordbishop34 (1442) 6 years ago

I heard what made it to theaters is about 70 % Ron Howard, so he dumped a lot.

https://movieweb.com/solo-star-wars-story-how-much-ron-howard-reshot/

reply

[–] AP (5259) 6 years ago

What a mess.

reply

[–] Galactus03 (4289) 6 years ago

Who the F*** really cares???

reply

[–] Nicko's Nose (1651) 6 years ago

Stupid people like OP.

reply

[–] lordbishop34 (1442) 6 years ago

I imagine Disney cares, this is a pretty poor performance.

reply

[–] Galactus03 (4289) 6 years ago

Doesnt really matter though to people who liked it. It doesn't spell doom for a Han Solo franchise because there really wasn't gonna be one. This is a stand alone film. All this means to Disney is they shouldn't release films so close. Otherwise it's business as usual.

reply

[–] lordbishop34 (1442) 6 years ago

Maybe but in reality there were some concerning signs with TLJ as well it’s multiplier was lower than R1 and TFA, it was expected to make more based on its launch. However a 1.3 billion haul hides it well and can be spun. However you can only spin the results of Solo so far. I wouldn’t be surprised if there is some concern with part 9 in the halls of Disney.

reply

[–] CraigJamesReview (1463) 6 years ago

It's a terrible movie. Poorly lit, soulless, joyless, humorless, bland acting, messy plot. Just awful. One of the worst star wars ever. Should have just let it die when Lord and Miller got fired.

Have a short review of this one here if anyone is interested-https://youtu.be/SVdMCNhBstI

reply

[–] darkpast (8060) 6 years ago

yes it was dim

reply

[–] DarkKnight (262) 6 years ago

The low box office isn't surprising. The Han Solo character just isn't a very big box office draw in itself. Han is a cool character, but a movie about him just won't sell.

People go to Star Wars mainly to see the jedi/sith, and this isn't about either of those things.

I don't see the Boba Fett movie doing well either because that will probably have no Jedi either, and Fett isn't a very interesting character to begin with.

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 6 years ago

That's what people used to say about Ant-Man or Guardians of the Galaxy. And they succeeded.

When people enjoy the franchise, spin-offs work. People enjoy having a different perspective, taking a break from the main story. Ant-Man worked because it was a funny movie about a minor character that took a break from the über-dramatic Marvel universe (in movies). Biggest problem with Solo? people are not interested in the main story anymore.

reply

[–] darkpast (8060) 6 years ago

Ant-Man wasn't a big hit, it did fine but compared to GOTG its grosses were underwhelming

reply

[–] Vechtersbaas (550) 6 years ago

People liked it though.

reply

[–] dlancer (2036) 6 years ago

I'd be willing to bet on it grossing more than Attack of the Clones, but that budget is a mess.

However, the budget is just as much Lord and Miller's fault as it is KK's.

Not sure why they didn't do a December release though. That's become the standard for Star Wars. Putting out a $250+ million budget SW film at this particular time was a boneheaded move, and that's all on KK.

reply

[–] lordbishop34 (1442) 6 years ago

It might not make that much money, even unadjusted that film made almost 650 mil total box office, adjusted BO in America alone it made 475 mil which Solo probably has no shot at. The international Market is so bad its appears almost entirely dependent on domestic, which means it better have a lot better multiplier than any of the current Disney SW films.

reply

[–] dlancer (2036) 6 years ago

It'll be a rough ride, but I think Solo can reach $700m, perhaps just barely making a profit as who knows how high these ad budgets go. I don't think adjusting for inflation is warranted though because Attack of the Clones simply should not have made under $700 million. That would be like the Last Jedi making below or around $950 million. That said, these "Star Wars Story" films do not have the hype around them that the trilogies have.

Rogue One had plenty of buzz during its early production, but it just barely made half of Force Awakens. That should've been a wake-up call to keep the budget for this much lower since there was absolutely zero buzz for it. Making a movie nobody asked for, and giving it a trilogy-level budget... that's where Kathleen Kennedy completely dropped the ball.

reply

[–] lordbishop34 (1442) 6 years ago

I don’t think it will profit even at 700. It would require a strong international result to get to 700 mil and it crashed and burned internationally. China is generally the one that does the heavy lifting when it comes to international market saving films and Solo has already failed there and did extremely poor in most others areas.

reply